Guy Incognito

It really was a fantastic opportunity that we have just spurned. It is so sad that more people couldn't see it.

Top post, DP. I think the work done by ordinary volunteers was inspiring, but ultimately there were weaknesses in the pro-independence case put forward by the politicians - currency being the most blatant one. When you think about some of the things the No campaign came away with it is hard not to feel bitter (such as telling Polish migrants that they might be deported if we vote Yes) but we have to move on. It is killing me thinking about some of the great ideas that were put forward for Scotland and which are now unlikely to see the light of day. In a way I don't want us to have another chance, because that might mean that my fears of a f*cked-over Scotland will have come to fruition. But if we do get another bite at the cherry then we must from learn from mistakes that have been made in this campaign. Maybe then we will prevail.

Well, that's that then. Needless to say I am absolutely gutted by the outcome. I think independence could have been wonderful for our country and I think this is a massive missed opportunity. However, the people have spoken and I accept that. I am immensely proud of the ordinary men and women who volunteered and campaigned for Yes and dared to dream of a better Scotland. I only wish I had done more myself. There were holes in the pro-independence argument that were picked and picked at and, if we are ever in a position to go again, the pro-independence parties have to learn lessons from this campaign. Hopefully the unionist parties stay true to their word in respect of new powers and my fears about Scotland getting bent over by Westminster do not come to fruition. What I think is important now is that both sides of the debate put their differences behind them and move on. Ultimately, we all still need to live together!

Except I didn't actually say that. What I said was this: So I clearly wasn't referring to you specifically. Anyway, I am away to exercise my democratic right. In the words of a man far greater than I, may your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears. Best wishes, everybody.

Kni, things like TTIP make me think you are right to distrust the EU. However, my understanding of TTIP is that the NHS only be vulnerable to it (if vulnerable is the right word, I suspect it is) if it has already been opened up to the private sector. In England it has. In fact, the NHS in England is no longer run by the government, it is run by various NHS trusts. This has not happened in Scotland, and so we could still protect our health service from TTIP - even if we are in the EU - provided our government do not open it up to private industry. I would argue, then, that if we remain in the UK, if Holyrood remains reliant on Westminster funding - which is looking highly likely to be cut - then we may have no choice but to sell parts of the NHS off to private contractors, thus making us susceptible to TTIP.

And he says, vote Yes.

Many, not all but many, of those individuals, organisations and newspapers who support a No vote have their own vested interests heart rather than what is good for Scotland. The newspapers that are sold in Scotland are often either off-shoots of English publications or are owned down south. Consequently, I take what such people have to say with an extremely generous pinch of salt. The Yes case, at its most fundamental, is simple: Scotland is a country and it should run and control its own affairs. That is the case. That is the pitch. We can argue over the nuts and bolts, and have been doing for the past couple of years, but the concept is really very simple. Ultimately, voters might reject that concept (which would be a pity, in my opinion) but to me it is quite clear to see what it is. Conversely, I am still not sure what the No case really is. With less than one day to go until the polls open I still haven't heard a compelling reason for why we are, to coin a phrase, better together. I have tried to see things from the unionist perspective, honestly I have, but all I can come up with are the same kind of 'what ifs' that have been put forward already. The entire concept of the UK no longer makes sense (if indeed if ever did). You could argue that the SNP ought to have been more on the ball in presenting their proposals for independence but I don't think they expected to win as comfortably as they did in 2011. Between 2007 and 2010 they were a minority administration who struggled to get legislation passed through parliament and before that they were playing catch-up to Labour. The ConDems being in power in Westminster probably is a plus for them, in a strictly political sense, but I wouldn't pay too much attention to opinion polls. What they don't adequately factor in are the first time voters or those people who don't normally vote. As I have said before, it was only when ordinary folk got involved in campaigning that things really began to take off for the Yes side. Perhaps that tells us something.

You're not a closet Shrewsbury Town fan are you, Sunnylaw Jag? https://www.facebook.com/HO4YO/posts/341700639322828

I hope your face is Scarlett after that dreadful pun, LIB.

To be fair, the government stitched us up in '79. And besides, what was on offer was an assembly with powers far more limited that Holyrood has now. There are parallels we can draw with now. For instance, 'new powers' in return for rejecting the assembly were offered then too. One thing that gives me hope of a Yes vote on Thursday is the fact that Scots have always voted in favour of self-determination when the question has been put to them: both in 1979 and 1997. We still have whisky, oil and farming, although coal mining and most of the manufacturing is now long gone. I have often wondered whether the assembly would have made much difference. I am certain that independence would have, had it been on offer. So while I understand what you were saying before about it being the wrong time, I am not sure we will get another chance like this again. The door is open. All it needs is a wee push.

http://youtu.be/W9_nXlvY6Io

Dumbarton's Bet Butler stadium (or whatever the feck its called) is fairly pants too.

Sorry, have I missed something? I thought the vote wasn't until Thursday. The Yes case has been made. Plenty of times. You may not agree with the case but there is now a wealth of information out there. Some questions still require answers, but it is not possible to answer everything at this stage. The work done not by big name politicians but by volunteers has been amazing over the past few months. The moment ordinary folk took the reins of the campaign was when it really took off. The Yes campaign may yet fail but it won't be for a lack of trying.

If Higgy carries on playing the way he is then I can't see him remaining at Firhill much longer, more's the pity.

Salmond's plan is a currency union, which wouldn't be my plan if I was in his position. Objectionable would be too strong a term to describe it though. Daft, would probably be the word I'd use. That said, as things stand the BoE controls the interests rates anyway. It'd be good if he called Westminster's bluff and told them where to stick their sterling and their £1trn debt, but I don't think he will, not at this stage. I'd much prefer our own currency with its own central bank that is able to control interest rates; the only downside I can think of is that it might affect our exports, due to transaction costs and the fact that it might actually be too strong (given that it would be oil and gas backed). However - and I know I have said this before - just because the SNP's vision doesn't totally mirror my own doesn't mean that I am going to pass up the chance of getting where I want to be. In my view it is a step in the right direction and is certainly better than the alternative. Fair enough. I can't agree that the No campaign is project reality. At times they have flat out lied: they told OAPs that their pensions are at risk, even after DWP confirmed that they wouldn't be, and the other week Willie Rennie appeared on TV claiming that mortgage payments would go up - and couldn't explain why when pressed by the interviewer. Their other, more recent tactic has been to basically threaten people. I don't think this is a particularly good one - Scots tend not to take kindly to being told they can't do something. Robin McAlpine sums up this aspect better than I ever could here: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/butterfly-rebellion By the way, I don't think that the Yes campaign has been brilliant either; the mainstream movement has been fairly toothless, in my opinion. What has been good, though, is the grassroots movement, and I think that the other side massively underestimated that. Currently, we have only 6 MEPs. Slovakia, roughly the same size as us, has twice as many. We have no seat in the UN and no seat in NATO. The UK has, but the UK tends to argue for what is best for the UK, which isn't always necessarily the best for Scotland specifically. We may be keeping the lion's share of the oil but Westminster has responsibility for the debt - and the debt is whopping. This is why I think a CU is likely (even if I rather we didn't have one - see above). Scottish MPs from unionist parties will be in a strange position; their party line will be to do what is best for rUK but at the same time they know that they'll have to face their constituents at some point. Also, there lies a second bite at the cherry in the form of a career in Holyrood. This will include people with a wealth of experience in actually running a country, and, setting aside any differences during this campaign, their experience could prove invaluable in a fledgling nation.

Facts and common sense, eh? How very subjective. Your mind is clearly closed on this subject, but I will pay you the courtesy of a response. Life is peppered with risks and uncertainty. If we vote No we still face risk and uncertainty. If we were having this debate when Scotland was booming you would no doubt be arguing that we would be "barking" to consider leaving. We have had two years of scaremongering from the No side, such as the implication that businesses will, for some reason, up and leave. Firstly, none have clearly stated that they will and secondly, in abandoning a highly-skilled workforce they would be cutting their noses off to spite their faces. As for shipbuilding, in Scotland it has dwindled to the point where it is almost on its last legs - and that is while we remain part of the UK. Outwith the fact that there is no logical basis behind the claim that supermarkets might 'have' to increase their prices, do you honestly think that Cameron gives a flying one about the average Scot's shopping bill? The man is only interested in keeping his job and if frightening enough people into voting No achieves that, then so be it. Many of the businesses people hinting at leaving in the event of a Yes vote are Tory backers and Cameron has asked a few favours. Only someone naïve or completely blinkered could fail to wonder if there is another agenda at work here. You talk of a reduced 'influence' on the world, but how much influence do we have at the moment? Actually, how much influence do we have in our own country? We often don't even get the government we vote for! An independent Scotland might only have a small voice on the world stage but it is an improvement on no voice at all. The reason we have devolution in the first place is to keep us sweet and to try and stave off the threat of independence. The parliament was even structured in such a way that an overall majority for any party was almost impossible; the result in 2011 was unprecedented and unexpected. I certainly don't hang on the words of Salmond. In fact, independence is possibly the only thing he and I see eye to eye on and even then I don't particularly favour his brand of the stuff. Luckily, unless Salmond is immortal, he won't be around forever and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he called it a day in the event of a Yes vote. I also believe that there are enough bright, talented people in this country to make it a success, but I feel the country is being stifled at the moment by being part of the UK. Nowhere have I said or even suggested that everyone is wrong apart from me. I have stated my opinions on this thread and have tried to respect those of others, even where we have differed. Our opinions clearly differ. I can accept that, even though it seems to irk you. Ultimately, I just want my country to make its own decisions. I don't see what is objectionable about that.

I know! When was the last time we saw one of those? Great header from the big man too; lovely goal.

Well, the only campaigning I plan on doing today is campaigning vigorously down at Firhill for a (real) Jags victory. Two hours of no politics at the end of this week sounds like bliss!

You're not wrong. The first time I became aware of it was when the UK invaded Iraq. I have noticed it since, to a lesser extent, with regards to striking workers, particularly recent public sector industrial action. This week has probably been on a par with what we got before the Iraq war though (if not worse). Thankfully, unlike in 2003, we now have social media. Without it, the Yes campaign would have no chance of a fair hearing.

He'll be missed. Young Gary has been on fire so far this season.

Stay positive. They want you to get pissed off and throw in the towel. What we have seen this week is a bombardment of negativity and propaganda from the UK establishment; a coming together of big business and individuals with no interest in us or our country other than self-interest and personal gain. It is bullying, and the best way to deal with bullies - the only way to deal with bullies - is to stand up to them. Luckily, all we need to do to rid ourselves of these vampires is go to a polling station and vote Yes. This was never going to a fair fight but we are still in with a shout. There may be unanswered questions and flaws in the plans of Salmond and Co. but this week, more than any, has highlighted which side of the debate genuinely has Scotland's best interest at heart. The fact that we are almost neck and neck in the polls in the face of what they have thrown at us is an achievement in itself. Chin up!

Going by his online persona the guy who put the WBB is a bit of a prat (he's an Aberdeen fan; it goes with the territory). However - and I will admit bias here - he is a good journalist, and having skimmed through a copy of the WBB the other day I have to say it is a more than decent pocket guide to the debate. And unlike certain other publications it doesn't hide behind a pretence of impariality!

If Cameron was sure that the answer from the EU was likely to be negative then you can bet your boots that he would have asked by now. He didn't have to ask but what better way to put Salmond's gas at a peep? The fact is, at this point no one - not even the all-knowing kni - knows for certain what Scotland's position in the EU will be. Like you say, it is entirely unprecedented. But Scotland is completely integrated within the EU. Hundreds of thousands of EU citizens live here (if we count people from rUK) and hundreds of thousands of Scots live elsewhere in the EU. The EU is a major trading partner with Scotland and vice versa. Scotland has a lot to offer the EU - our oil, our gas, our financial services capacity, our renewable energy potential - and Scots have been EU citizens for decades. To just blindly treat us like a completely new aspirant country makes no sense on either a practical or a moral level. The white paper makes mention of an 18 month negotiation period following next week's vote. This includes negotiating the terms of Scotland's EU membership. Theoretically, that means that any loose ends could be tied up before the date of independence. And if the terms are unreasonable then there's noting to stop us saying 'stuff you' to the EU and joining EFTA instead, because that is what independence is about - Scotland making its own decisions.